Literature DB >> 17352570

Distinguishing between automaticity and attention in the processing of emotionally significant stimuli.

Hadas Okon-Singer1, Joseph Tzelgov, Avishai Henik.   

Abstract

There is contradicting evidence as to whether irrelevant but significant emotional stimuli can be processed outside the focus of attention. In the current study, participants were asked to ignore emotional and neutral pictures while performing a competing task. In Experiment 1, orienting of attention to distracting pictures was manipulated via a peripheral cue. In Experiment 2, attentional load was varied, either leaving spare attention to process the distracting pictures or, alternatively, depleting attentional resources. Although all pictures were task irrelevant, negative pictures were found to interfere more with performance in comparison to neutral pictures. This finding suggests that processing of negative stimuli is automatic in the sense that it does not require execution of conscious monitoring. However, interference occurred only when sufficient attention was available for picture processing. Hence, processing of negative pictures was dependent on sufficient attentional resources. This suggests that processing of emotionally significant stimuli is automatic yet requires attention. (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17352570     DOI: 10.1037/1528-3542.7.1.147

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Emotion        ISSN: 1528-3542


  32 in total

1.  High negative valence does not protect emotional event-related potentials from spatial inattention and perceptual load.

Authors:  Stefan Wiens; Tanaz Molapour; Judith Overfeld; Anders Sand
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 3.282

2.  Common regions of dorsal anterior cingulate and prefrontal-parietal cortices provide attentional control of distracters varying in emotionality and visibility.

Authors:  Qian Luo; Derek Mitchell; Matthew Jones; Krystal Mondillo; Meena Vythilingam; R James R Blair
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2007-08-15       Impact factor: 6.556

3.  Nonautomatic emotion perception in a dual-task situation.

Authors:  Dave Tomasik; Eric Ruthruff; Philip A Allen; Mei-Ching Lien
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2009-04

4.  Modulating the processing of emotional stimuli by cognitive demand.

Authors:  Tanja S Kellermann; Melanie A Sternkopf; Frank Schneider; Ute Habel; Bruce I Turetsky; Karl Zilles; Simon B Eickhoff
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2011-01-22       Impact factor: 3.436

5.  Opposing effects of perceptual versus working memory load on emotional distraction.

Authors:  Tamara P Tavares; Kyle Logie; Derek G V Mitchell
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-06-21       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 6.  Can automaticity be verified utilizing a perceptual load manipulation?

Authors:  Hanna Benoni
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-12

7.  Motivation enhances control of positive and negative emotional distractions.

Authors:  Amy T Walsh; David Carmel; David Harper; Gina M Grimshaw
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-08

8.  Attentional capture by simultaneous pleasant and unpleasant emotional distractors.

Authors:  Srikanth Padmala; Nicola Sambuco; Maurizio Codispoti; Luiz Pessoa
Journal:  Emotion       Date:  2018-03-01

9.  Interactive effect of acute pain and motor learning acquisition on sensorimotor integration and motor learning outcomes.

Authors:  Erin Dancey; Bernadette Murphy; Danielle Andrew; Paul Yielder
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-08-17       Impact factor: 2.714

10.  Reward elicits cognitive control over emotional distraction: Evidence from pupillometry.

Authors:  Amy T Walsh; David Carmel; Gina M Grimshaw
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 3.282

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.